Local Government Ombudsman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Commission for Local Administration in England (The Local Government Ombudsmen) is a United Kingdom governmental institution, established in 1974, which has the power to investigate complaints about councils (and certain other bodies[1]) in England. Council services which can be investigated include housing, planning, education, social services, council tax, housing benefit and highways. There are three Local Government Ombudsmen and each deals with complaints from different parts of the country. The Ombudsmen can investigate in response to allegations of maladministration[2] causing injustice to the person who has complained. Although LGO officials can investigate complaints about council actions, they cannot question a council's actions simply because someone disagrees with it.

The LGO provides dispute resolution services for free, and asserts itself as independent and impartial. It currently costs the British tax payer approximately £11.5 million per annum.

A representative of the Local Government Association sits on the selection panel for Ombudsmen and each of the present Ombudsmen was serving as a local authority chief executive at the time of their appointment, inevitably compromising their impartiality[3], [4]. The government has now recognised the problem of unaccountability in this selection process and is proposing a small step towards improving the situation[1] The ombudsman does not reveal the proportion of staff recruited from local government.[5]

The LGO is the final avenue for complaints regarding most local government matters, and will only become involved after the in-house complaints processes of a council have been exhausted. Ombudsmen are not obliged to investigate any given complaint, they do not have to justify their decisions, and there is no right of appeal, except via judicial review.

Contents

[edit] Duties

The stated objective of the Ombudsmen is to secure satisfactory redress for complainants and better administration for the authorities. Since 1989, the Ombudsmen have had power to issue advice on good administrative practice in local government based on experience from their prior investigations. The Ombudsmen also offer training in complaint handling to the councils which they are charged to oversee.[6]

The Ombudsmen's remit only extends to England. Similar duties are carried out by the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and the Northern Ireland Ombudsman for other United Kingdom nations.

The Ombudsman is not a disciplinary body. Although it will hear complaints of maladministration stemming from the actions of individual councillors [7] or council employees, they may only seek to remedy the injustice, not discipline the person responsible. Complaints about the conduct of individual councillors can be made to the Standards Board for England, which can apply disciplinary sanctions but does not provide redress for complainants. Unless they are also members of a professional body, such as the Law Society, individual officers can only be disciplined by their employer. The Ombudsman does not have an explicit duty to report criminal conduct by councils discovered in the course of an investigation to the law enforcement, and there are no known prosecutions or convictions resulting from the work of the Ombudsman.

A 1995 report by Sir Geoffrey Chipperfield recommended abolition of the LGO, on the grounds that it would not be able to effectively handle the increasing volume of local government complaints. Chipperfield recommended that all stages of a complaint, including external review, should be carried out locally. The government took no action, stating: "We recognise the importance of all local authorities having their own effective local complaints systems, although we are not persuaded of the need to seek legislation imposing a new statutory duty on local authorities to establish and maintain such systems. Nor do we believe that the case has been made that there is at present no continued need for the CLA's role as a wholly independent body to investigate complaints of maladministration."[8].

[edit] Complaint process

A complainant must give the council concerned an opportunity to deal with a complaint against it first. It is best to use the council's own complaints procedure, if it has one. If the complainant is not satisfied with the action the council takes, he or she can send a written complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman, or ask a councillor to do so on their behalf, and the Ombudsman will decide whether or not to investigate. After investigating the Ombudsman presents both parties with a provisional finding, which they may challenge, possibly leading to further consideration and investigation.

Only 1.71% of cases in 2004/5 resulted in a published report and a finding of maladministration. A further 25.29% of cases ended by 'local settlement' agreed between the council and the Ombudsman[9]. This is an offer of redress by the council which the Ombudsman deems satisfactory (whether or not the complainant agrees). Local settlements do not result in a public report or a formal finding of maladministration. Councils are under no legal obligation to fulfill local settlements, nor act on the Ombudsman's recommendations, including those in a published report,[10] though the Ombudsman claims that only one percent of settlements and recommendations are not complied with in full[11].

The Ombudsman has published guidance on different categories of complaints, such as social services and education, which include guideline figures for the compensation to be awarded.[12]

Complainants can ask the Ombudsman to re-open their case via the Ombudsman's Comeback procedure only when a complaint has been determined without a formal report.[13]

One risk of taking a complaint to the LGO is that the complainant may run out of time to seek judicial review of an LGO decision, missing the opportunity to raise the original matter in court.[14] Judicial review must be applied for within three months in the UK[15] and only 54% of 2004/5 Ombudsman cases were determined within thirteen weeks.[16]

[edit] Complaints about the Ombudsman

Complainants dissatisfied with the Ombudsman can only make a complaint via the Ombudsman's own complaints procedure, which will be investigated by the Ombudsman himself.

[edit] Judicial review

Although the Ombudsman is not accountable to any external authority, complainants dissatisfied with the Ombudsman's decision on their original complaint may seek Judicial Review through the courts, though with little likelihood of success.[17] This can prove expensive, but costs can be claimed if the challenge is successful. Judges do not overturn decisions of the Ombudsman, but can require the Ombudsman to reconsider a decision. Due to the wide legal discretion the Ombudsmen have, this normally results in the Ombudsman reconsidering and then confirming the original decision, and there are no known cases of the Ombudsman reversing a decision after judicial review.

The well-known and long running Balchin case[18] started when the LGO dismissed their complaint in 1991, went through three judicial reviews, and went to the Parliamentary Ombudsman,[19] who published a joint report on the case together with the Ombudsman.[20]

The Ombudsman has destroyed records of any Judicial Reviews challenging his decisions prior to 2001. [21] Although public law solicitor Richard Buxton won a judicial review decision for a client in 2001, this may have been recorded as occurring in the 2000-2001 financial year.[22]

[edit] Political accountability

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister receives a number of complaints about the Ombudsman but does not know how many and does not act upon them.[23]

Appointments to posts within the CLEA are not subject to the regulation and monitoring functions of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

[edit] Publications

The LGO publishes quite extensively,[24] including an annual "digest of cases" (not actually a digest, but a self promoting selection) and "guidance on good practice" notes.

The key publication intended for members of the public is the leaflet Complaint about the Council? How to complain to the Local Government Ombudsman.

The publication How to Complain About Us describes the internal complaints procedure.

[edit] Incumbent Ombudsmen

The three current Ombudsmen are:

In March 2006, the Audit Commission published a highly critical audit letter for Norwich City Council during Mrs Seex' last year as Chief Executive [25], leading to questions about her credibility as an independent and final arbiter on matters of maladministration in local government. Amongst other things it criticises "poor financial controls" and "lack of progress in putting in place improvements identified in previous audits". As an LGO Anne Seex has recently advocated "creative compensation", including awarding a holiday for the living and a tombstone for the dead[26].
  • Jerry White (Chief Executive of Hackney Borough Council 1989-1995, published historian and local government theorist[27]) handles complaints from the rest of England.

[edit] External links

(Campaign group)

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Gordon Brown, debate on constitutional reform 3rd July 2007 "The House of Commons should also have a bigger role in the selection of key public officials. I propose, as a first step, pre-appointment hearings for public officials whose role it is to protect the public's rights and interests, and for whom there is not currently independent scrutiny. That includes the ... local government ombudsman ..."